Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-05-14
FINED FIVE DOLLARS.
THIS THE RESULT OF THE cRUAP
BOYCOTT CASE.
Appeal to be Taken to the Supreme Court
to Test the Judges Instrue.
tions.

The trial Of william F. Crump, charged
with completely in conspiracy against
BaugLman Brothers, was concluded In the
Hastings Court yesterday.
When the court met counsel for defence
without argument offered instructions for
submission TO the jury. but the Judge re-
fused them and instructed the jury a. iol-
! lows:
ali the Jury believe from the evidence
that the defendant (Crump) entered into an
agreement with one or more OF the defend-
ants whereby they undertook TO coerce the
fTm Of Bauchman Brothers 10 discharge
from their employment, against the VIII OF
said firm, certain persons then in their en-
pl0y and 10 tske into their employ-
meDt certain other persons that the slid
Baughman Brothers did not wish to take into
their employment. then they are instructed
that said agreement was unlawful; and II
they believe further from the evidence that
in pursuance Of and TO carry out said agree
ment the defendant threatened any OF the
customers OF the said Baughman Brothers
that il they continued TO deaf with the said
Baughman Brothers they, the said persons
making said agreement. would iniure the
business Of such customers by intimldating
their customers and making them afraid TO
continue their patronage OF the said Blugh-
man Brothers, then they must find the de-
febdant guilty"
TIE JURY RETIRE.
The Jury then retired, and in about ten
minutes returned with verdict OF guilty.
and assessed the punishment at fine OF s.
The defendant thereupOn moved the
Court IN ariest OF Judgment, which mo-
ton the Court continued until Monday.
when counsel can appear in court and
argue the question.
THE PINE PAID.
Mr.. Crump paid the 8 fine and the costs.
which are held by the clerk subject To the
further order OF the Court.
Mr.. G. V. Meredith, OF counsel for de-
fence, dming the progress OF the trial took
several exceptions to the rulings OF the
Court. and the Judge has given until Mon
day to prepare the bills OF exceptions.
AGREEMENT AMONG COUNSEL.
II is understood that the reason no argu.
ment was made in the case before the jury,
and the prisoner, through his counsel, made
no objections to the remarks Of the Conn
m0nWcalth's Attorney, was because 1t was
agreed that IL the instructions OF the
Judge were against boycotting. the prisoner
would. without making objections, allow
the C0mmonwcallh's Attorney to ask for
fine Of -, with the purpose OF taking the
case to the Court OF Appeals. in order that
the highest court in the State may pass
upon The question OF the night to boycott.
This course was pursued by the prisoner
and the Other parties indicted, because, I'M
Ill The views Of Judge Atkins should be re-
yersed by the higher court, an attempt to
boycott would he a criminal Oilence pan.
isiable in the Hastings Court.
Upder such circumstances. and deSir0uS
Of knowing from the highest court their
legal rights, thev determined to make no
argument before the jury and make no OBJ
lection to the iury's returning a verdict
like the one they did. They preferred T.
take a course by which they will learn their
legal rights to having a hung jury or mis-
Trial, as in the case Of the information.